2017-02-23
2017-02-18
2017-02-16
2017-02-15
2017-02-09
2017-02-08
Attempted Explanation Of Things That Annoy Me About People & My Current Situation - Rev. J.T. Smith
On January 23, 2013 at approximately 0655 I survived a hemorrhagic stroke that initially shut down and paralyzed the right half of my body from the neck down and limited the peripheral vision of my right eye and the hearing in my right ear. While much of what I'm trying to explain predates that stroke by more than a couple decades, it's been exacerbated since the stroke.
As I've stated elsewhere, the simplest way to describe what
really annoys me about people is laziness in thought and action, the
mindset that believes "impossible" is an acceptable answer and allows the notion of “eh, good enough” to somehow be
acceptable. I’ve worked with more people than I care to think
about who took that attitude toward their job, yet they’d be among
the first to gripe is something they were buying wasn’t to the
specifications they needed or desired whether it be a piece of
equipment, a repair to their car or something similar, or their meal
in a restaurant whether it was fast food or a fancy restaurant. It
was alright if they did it but Heaven help them if they were on the
receiving end.
Because I had a stroke and my body
doesn’t work the way it should, people seem to automatically assume
that I’m somehow fragile like an eggshell. As a result, my
capacity for being able to volunteer at Grandview Hospital would be limited
to only performing data entry/clerical tasks (providing I'd be allowed to volunteer in the first place). While those tasks are
within my working background (even if I am out of practice), those
aren’t all that I’m capable of. The only other duties they have
open involve a lot of walking. For me that’s fine as I need the
exercise in order to get at least that part of my body working
better. Unfortunately, simply because I could potentially fall
(which was actually true even before the stroke) the “walking”
positions are completely out because “the floor is harder than my
head.” This both completely ignores and refuses to contemplate,
let alone acknowledge, the fact that in 2013 I fell four times and
I managed to regain my feet again without any assistance or suffering
any injury. Two of those times involved concrete sidewalks which are
both far from level (unlike hospital corridors) and are far harder
than hospital floors, the third time involved going down (literally)
a gravel path, and the last involved my own room. Granted, on November 9, 2015, I tripped while traversing an asphalt walking/bike trail approximately three miles from where I live and I broke my right wrist to the point of needing a titanium plate and a host of screws; but before anyone tries to read into that, I hit the ground so hard that I also broke the watch on my left wrist. All of which
should demonstrate that I’m not fragile.
Then there’s the American medical
complex and their simply getting people to “live with” whatever ails
them as opposed to actually trying to fix the problem. This
(combined with greed) is why we haven’t seen any real cures since
polio. This also extends to rehabilitation therapy and the fact that
the staff’s goals so often don’t match the goals of their
patients. Doylestown Hospital’s Therapy Department is a prime
example of this. My goal is to regain 95-100% of my physical
capabilities. I realize that this isn’t something that’s going
to happen overnight. Unfortunately, the therapists I had only set
their sights on a 50% improvement in this function and 50% increase
in that function, and then were satisfied when I succeed in gaining
45% increase in one and 52% in the other. When you’re starting at
only 30% of full functionality and their goal is for you improve by
50%, that doesn’t take you to 80%; it only takes you to 45%.
Sadly, while this isn’t the only
hospital/rehab group that does this, Doylestown Hospital is where I
also witnessed minor panic attacks any time I had a balance check
(they referred to it as “losing [my] balance” which implies my
having fallen over when I did no such thing) or the ridiculous
insistence that I must use the handrail while ascending or descending
their staircases, yet they themselves were under no such requirement.
This also doesn’t take into account that stairways in public
buildings (including hospitals) are nowhere near as steep as those
found in houses and old buildings (e.g. the pub that I reside above).
There’s also the concept of
“impossible” that I keep running into, especially in places like
hospitals. Supposedly, I should accept that it may be "impossible" to
fully recover from the stroke. Bullshit. All things are possible; it’s
the probability that’s the tricky part. I acknowledge that the
probabilities are not in my favour, but that doesn’t mean it cannot
be done. The probability of my being able to walk at all at the
beginning of my second week of Acute Rehab was exceedingly low, yet I
still did it. Prior to the 1950s it was deemed a certainty that the
human body couldn’t survive speeds greater than the speed of sound, which is where the term "sound barrier" comes from.. And then the sound barrier was broken and planes like the Concorde
and military aircraft like the SR-71 Blackbird that travel at speeds of Mach 1 or more that successfully
carry humans faster than the speed of sound. According to the laws
of aerodynamics it’s impossible for a bumblebee to fly, yet it does
so successfully. (The supposed workaround being that the laws of
fluid dynamics are used to explain this success.) Supposedly it’s
impossible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light, yet
tachyons are particles that travel faster than the speed of light. If tachyons can travel at those velocities, then it’s possible for
other things to do so as well. All of which I had to point out to
the nurse I had to deal with at Doylestown Hospital who insisted that
“impossible” isn’t laziness. It’s nearly always considered
impossible until someone succeeds in doing it.
And still we’re told as disabled
people (handicapped, whatever) that we should "just accept" that we may
never get our bodies back and/or our lives back and just live with
our current situation being as good as it gets. That’s a load of
crap! Disabled people should never be encouraged to simply accept
what happened to them and then just live with it. "Just accept" really means "Just give up." Disabled people
should be encouraged to do whatever they can to get back to where
they were before whatever disabled them happened. Granted, some
adaptations may be necessary to succeed in this in either the short
or long run, but that shouldn’t be simply “good enough.” Good
enough should never be good enough.
- by Rev. J.T. Smith
(Author's note: This was originally written in September 2014 for my psych therapist. It has been updated since).
2017-02-07
A Challenge - Rev. J.T. Smith
I already know that I'm not likely to make any friends by this, but that doesn't really matter.
I constantly hear how "American troops are protecting [my/our] freedoms." Yet I never hear anything specific about just which freedoms are being directly threatened by foreign powers that are not the result of Americans curtailing their own freedoms.
I challenge any American soldier in any branch of the American armed forces to not only name me a single freedom that any country in the Middle East (or any other nation in the world for that matter) in the last 50 years [i.e. since 1967 as it's now 2017] that has ever been jeopardized, but to also explain IN DETAIL exactly how that freedom was jeopardized!
One thing, the answer must involve direct action(s) on the part of that foreign nation.
This is my challenge to any American soldier who can answer in detail since, other than the media, they're the most vociferous in this claim.
I constantly hear how "American troops are protecting [my/our] freedoms." Yet I never hear anything specific about just which freedoms are being directly threatened by foreign powers that are not the result of Americans curtailing their own freedoms.
I challenge any American soldier in any branch of the American armed forces to not only name me a single freedom that any country in the Middle East (or any other nation in the world for that matter) in the last 50 years [i.e. since 1967 as it's now 2017] that has ever been jeopardized, but to also explain IN DETAIL exactly how that freedom was jeopardized!
One thing, the answer must involve direct action(s) on the part of that foreign nation.
This is my challenge to any American soldier who can answer in detail since, other than the media, they're the most vociferous in this claim.
- Rev. J.T. Smith
2017-02-06
2017-02-05
2017-02-03
This Song Is Just As Fitting Now As When it First Came Out
Lyrics (in case you're interested)
Lives In The Balance - Jackson Browne
I've been waiting for something to happen
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear
You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you've seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear
You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you've seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war
And there's a shadow on the faces
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interest runs
On the radio talk shows and TV
You hear one thing again and again
How the USA stands for freedom
And we come to the aid of a friend
But who are the ones that we call our friends
These governments killing their own
Or the people who finally can't take anymore
And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire
There's a shadow on the faces
Of the men who fan the flames
Of the wars that are fought in places
Where we can't even say the names
They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us everything from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can't be counted on to tell us
Who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interest runs
On the radio talk shows and TV
You hear one thing again and again
How the USA stands for freedom
And we come to the aid of a friend
But who are the ones that we call our friends
These governments killing their own
Or the people who finally can't take anymore
And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire
There's a shadow on the faces
Of the men who fan the flames
Of the wars that are fought in places
Where we can't even say the names
They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us everything from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can't be counted on to tell us
Who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire
2017-02-02
2017-01-31
The Shortsightedness Of Blaming Religion - Rev. J.T. Smith
Obviously, not everyone shares the same religious beliefs. Right and wrong, good and evil, those are subjective rather than objective terms and ideas. What's right and good for some can be considered wrong and evil by others. Everyone is the hero in their own life story. An often overlooked example of perspective is that America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan purportedly to fight the terrorists, yet to the noncombatant Iraqis and Afghans it's Americans (who invaded their countries, drop bombs, and launch missiles from planes and drones that destroy their homes, culminating in the combination of the missiles, bombs, and soldiers that kill their children and families) who're the real terrorists. There's the adage that “there's two sides to every coin,” the obverse and the reverse (heads and tails). Coins have a third side that people either forget or completely ignore: the edge between the sides that you can spin the coin on. And just like situations involving contention, there are three sides: You're side, their side, and reality.
Regardless of your faith leanings, even if you're an atheist, the reality is that the three largest religions practiced in the West (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all worship the same God. The only difference between Yahweh, Jehovah, and Allah is the same difference between Michael, Miguel, Mikail, et al.: Language. Yahweh is the Hebrew name for God, Jehovah is one of the Christian names for God, and Allah is the Arabic name. This matters because it's the perceived differences that are used as excuses by all sides for the current strife in the Middle East.
And there are those who will say that religion, regardless of its name, is nothing but superstition in the first place and science “provides all the answers,” and it's those superstitions that are the real cause for the various wars. Yet they'll still proceed to use science as a tool and weapon and religion as an excuse to commit heinous acts of violence.
And because that excuse is usually stated both loudly and repeatedly regardless of the theatre of combat, both the targets and those who witness the senseless violence, killing, destruction, and overarching tragedy will typically have an overriding fear/anger response and blame the religion (especially if they're not practitioners of the blamed religion) of their enemy. It's the easy answer. The over-simplified and fails to look at the entire picture answer, but still the perceived easy answer. And who doesn't like simple, easy answers that require little to no thought?
The thing is, while not only is there no religion safe from blame or being targeted, religion in and of itself is never the culprit. The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were perpetrated by Christians and were just as violent (relative to available technology) as what ISIL is doing now in the name of Islam.
We, this means all of us regardless of ethnicity or religious beliefs (including atheism), need to stop blaming religion for the actions of its purported followers and to stop accepting extremists' claims of following their religious beliefs when their actions demonstrate their real motivations are of feeling the need for perceived superiority and their evident desire to bully and dominate others. Just because someone uses something as an excuse does not automatically make that excuse the cause for their actions.
Islam is not the enemy.
Judaism is not the enemy.
Christianity is not the enemy.
Religion, regardless of the flavour, is not the enemy.
Greed, intolerance, hatred, those are the enemy!
Even science and religion really can co-exist without being at odds with each other if people would just get over themselves. Now if only the same could be said of humanity in general.
Regardless of your faith leanings, even if you're an atheist, the reality is that the three largest religions practiced in the West (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all worship the same God. The only difference between Yahweh, Jehovah, and Allah is the same difference between Michael, Miguel, Mikail, et al.: Language. Yahweh is the Hebrew name for God, Jehovah is one of the Christian names for God, and Allah is the Arabic name. This matters because it's the perceived differences that are used as excuses by all sides for the current strife in the Middle East.
And there are those who will say that religion, regardless of its name, is nothing but superstition in the first place and science “provides all the answers,” and it's those superstitions that are the real cause for the various wars. Yet they'll still proceed to use science as a tool and weapon and religion as an excuse to commit heinous acts of violence.
And because that excuse is usually stated both loudly and repeatedly regardless of the theatre of combat, both the targets and those who witness the senseless violence, killing, destruction, and overarching tragedy will typically have an overriding fear/anger response and blame the religion (especially if they're not practitioners of the blamed religion) of their enemy. It's the easy answer. The over-simplified and fails to look at the entire picture answer, but still the perceived easy answer. And who doesn't like simple, easy answers that require little to no thought?
The thing is, while not only is there no religion safe from blame or being targeted, religion in and of itself is never the culprit. The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were perpetrated by Christians and were just as violent (relative to available technology) as what ISIL is doing now in the name of Islam.
We, this means all of us regardless of ethnicity or religious beliefs (including atheism), need to stop blaming religion for the actions of its purported followers and to stop accepting extremists' claims of following their religious beliefs when their actions demonstrate their real motivations are of feeling the need for perceived superiority and their evident desire to bully and dominate others. Just because someone uses something as an excuse does not automatically make that excuse the cause for their actions.
Islam is not the enemy.
Judaism is not the enemy.
Christianity is not the enemy.
Religion, regardless of the flavour, is not the enemy.
Greed, intolerance, hatred, those are the enemy!
Even science and religion really can co-exist without being at odds with each other if people would just get over themselves. Now if only the same could be said of humanity in general.
by Rev. J.T. Smith
Religion Vs Science - Rev. J.T. Smith
That title seems to imply that science and religion (any religion, I am not singling out any specific religion here) are at odds with each other. And it seems that the majority of people (well, most Americans at least) share that sentiment: that science and religion are at odds with each other. The reality, though, is that they're not. I'm writing this as an ordained minister and a scientist. Even Einstein said: “I want to know God's thoughts - the rest are mere details.”
Scientists rely on methodology, testing, and evidence to come to their conclusions. Scientists, for the most part it seems, concur that science has all the answers. Science does not have all of the answers; science does, however, provide a way of getting the answers. The catch is that there will always be questions, there will always be mysteries.
Religion was basically the earliest form of science, the earliest means available to explain world and the universe. Science as we know it came about because Religion didn't seem sufficient to answering questions as there was evidence putting holes in many of the core statements of Religion. Part of the problem is a difference in the mental approach. Scientists have ideas that they test and either verify and/or adjust as needed, or reject the idea as determined by the testing and the resulting evidence. Religion, on the other hand, tends to engender beliefs. Beliefs are far more intransigent, much harder to adapt to new evidence. What many people don't seem to grasp is that simply because new evidence may contradict one aspect of a given religion it doesn't mean that the religion itself is wrong, it simply means that our understanding needs to be adjusted.
The Jewish Torah and the Christian Bible (of which the first five books are in fact the Torah) contain an ancient understanding of how the world and the universe were created; but that's not necessarily the whole story. Evolution still fits easily into it all. Especially once you look at the Creation as described in Genesis as the highlights much the same way the sports section of the news (i.e. the evening news, the sports section of the newspaper/newsletter, etc., et al.) doesn't describe every moment of a game/match but instead just gives the highlights for the “big plays”, the big events.
Science will explain how people reproduce, how groups of people form cultures and how those cultures interacted physically, economically, socially, etc. Science in and of itself does not set moral boundaries nor recommend any laws governing how people should treat each other. In many societies, religion does set those moral boundaries and recommend those governing laws. In fact, not only were the oldest documented legal codes based on religious doctrines, but many modern legal codes still spring at the base from religious-based ethical doctrines. That does mot mean that atheists lack morals or that religion is required to create a working and just code of conduct. In fact, the American legal system has roots not only in the 10 commandments of Jewish/Christian heritage/faith, but also numerous others including ancient Roman and Babylonian legal codes as well as civil and common law traditions of Europe.
Ultimately, what's mostly missed in all this back and forth is that both religion and science are really after the same thing: Both want to understand the universe. The difference is simply the approach, the effective questions being asked. Science seeks to explain and understand how it all happens, how it all works, the effective mechanics of it. Religion seeks to explain and understand why it all happens, what's behind it all, a reason beyond “that's just the way it is.” The easiest way to understand it is to think of science as the medical approach to the universe as a body, while religion could be thought of as the psychological approach to the universe. Science will see the body, but for many they'll see that body as a machine rather than a living dynamic entity. Religion tends to treat the body as a living entity and tries to work from there, but occasionally misses that the universe is dynamic rather than static, and has been since the Creation.
Scientists rely on methodology, testing, and evidence to come to their conclusions. Scientists, for the most part it seems, concur that science has all the answers. Science does not have all of the answers; science does, however, provide a way of getting the answers. The catch is that there will always be questions, there will always be mysteries.
Religion was basically the earliest form of science, the earliest means available to explain world and the universe. Science as we know it came about because Religion didn't seem sufficient to answering questions as there was evidence putting holes in many of the core statements of Religion. Part of the problem is a difference in the mental approach. Scientists have ideas that they test and either verify and/or adjust as needed, or reject the idea as determined by the testing and the resulting evidence. Religion, on the other hand, tends to engender beliefs. Beliefs are far more intransigent, much harder to adapt to new evidence. What many people don't seem to grasp is that simply because new evidence may contradict one aspect of a given religion it doesn't mean that the religion itself is wrong, it simply means that our understanding needs to be adjusted.
The Jewish Torah and the Christian Bible (of which the first five books are in fact the Torah) contain an ancient understanding of how the world and the universe were created; but that's not necessarily the whole story. Evolution still fits easily into it all. Especially once you look at the Creation as described in Genesis as the highlights much the same way the sports section of the news (i.e. the evening news, the sports section of the newspaper/newsletter, etc., et al.) doesn't describe every moment of a game/match but instead just gives the highlights for the “big plays”, the big events.
Science will explain how people reproduce, how groups of people form cultures and how those cultures interacted physically, economically, socially, etc. Science in and of itself does not set moral boundaries nor recommend any laws governing how people should treat each other. In many societies, religion does set those moral boundaries and recommend those governing laws. In fact, not only were the oldest documented legal codes based on religious doctrines, but many modern legal codes still spring at the base from religious-based ethical doctrines. That does mot mean that atheists lack morals or that religion is required to create a working and just code of conduct. In fact, the American legal system has roots not only in the 10 commandments of Jewish/Christian heritage/faith, but also numerous others including ancient Roman and Babylonian legal codes as well as civil and common law traditions of Europe.
Ultimately, what's mostly missed in all this back and forth is that both religion and science are really after the same thing: Both want to understand the universe. The difference is simply the approach, the effective questions being asked. Science seeks to explain and understand how it all happens, how it all works, the effective mechanics of it. Religion seeks to explain and understand why it all happens, what's behind it all, a reason beyond “that's just the way it is.” The easiest way to understand it is to think of science as the medical approach to the universe as a body, while religion could be thought of as the psychological approach to the universe. Science will see the body, but for many they'll see that body as a machine rather than a living dynamic entity. Religion tends to treat the body as a living entity and tries to work from there, but occasionally misses that the universe is dynamic rather than static, and has been since the Creation.
by Rev. J.T. Smith
Joe Gingras (Doin it up @ Aven's Angels Comedy Fundraiser) [comedy]
"Joe Gingras is the elder of my first ex-fiance's younger brothers. I hope you enjoy his set. I did. D) " - Rev. J.T. Smith
2017-01-30
2017-01-29
Maneuvering Through The Darkness - Rev. J.T. Smith
"I'm not crazy, I'm just a little unwell/I know right now you can't tell/But stay awhile and maybe then you'll see/A different side of me"
- "Unwell" by Matchbox Twenty
"We all have a universe of our own terrors to face.”
- the Doctor [Doctor Who: Ghost Light]
Every one of us has a Dark side within us. For the most part, people are able to keep that aspect in check. Typically, that Dark side is balanced out by what could be considered our "Light side".
"Typically"
and "usually" are not “always”. For some of us, it's
harder to control that Dark side.
Basically,
the Dark side comes in three flavours: Our fears, our demons, and our
monsters. Those three basic flavours are completely individualized
to each of us.
Our
fears are our, well . . . fears: both of the present and what's
coming in the future and our thorough uncertainty of the occurrence
of things that in the future we need to
happen, and the fear of things coming to pass that we don't
want to ever happen.
Like the "Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear" from Frank
Herbert's book Dune said:
"Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings
total obliteration."
Our
demons are the memories and regrets of our past, things that we want
to have done differently or that we can't forgive ourselves for
having done regardless of whether or not anyone else has forgiven us,
that come back to haunt us. Our nightmares nearly made manifest.
And anyone who claims to have no regrets lies, even if only
primarily to themselves. We all regret things either done or not
regardless of how seemingly inconsequential. How can you know you
have no regrets without knowing first-hand how it feels to begin
with?
And
our monsters are those dark urges we have to be careful to never let
loose else we may hurt those closest to us.
For
some of us, our Dark side can can be a fearful demonic monster in its
own right, striking at any time and without remorse. Always tiring,
draining, and dragging down our spirit with varying degrees of
success. And no matter how much those around us may wish to help us,
we still have to deal with our own Darkness, especially when we're
all alone in the night.
And
when we're fighting our monsters and having a really bad day, let's
be honest, telling us to “calm down” is the fastest way to piss
us off further, and telling us how wonderful things “really are”
is just so trite. And since God is testing us, and we can See and
Feel that clearly, saying we need to “find God” as though God was
somehow misplaced demonstrates the depths of their lack of
comprehension.
Letting
people in may be, so we're told, the best way to deal with that
Darkness of our Dark side, but for some of us that's easier stated
than accomplished. Especially when, no matter how hard we try to
make ourselves understood and explain what we're dealing with, even
when we're talking with people who're also dealing with their own
deep Darkness, we're still having to deal with ours in the middle of
the night or alone in a crowded room and the Darkness sneaks up on us
and begins to attempt to smother.
And
while reality itself can be a hard thing to cope with even at the
best times, regardless of how it's presented, or how much we'd rather
close our eyes, stick our fingers in our ears, and ignore it because
we feel it's uncomfortable or goes against what we want to believe, or
the frustrations that are incurred causes our Dark side to show
itself or be magnified further, the fact remains that we have to face
and deal with reality so that maybe, just maybe, we can bring about
much needed change which can act as a Light to drive away, or at
least stave off, our Dark side.
And,
sometimes, what we need most, more than chemical crutches and
understanding confidantes, even when the rest of reality doesn't
seem
to be going to hell in a hand-basket, is for things to finally start
going right for us without our having to scrabble and claw for every
micron of progress toward our goals. Particularly when the primary
goal is simply to get our life back.
In the meantime, some of us can
especially relate to Pitchshifter's song “Genius” when it says:
"If dysfunction is a function, then I must be some kind of
genius."
by Rev. J.T. Smith
2017-01-28
2017-01-27
2017-01-26
2017-01-25
Educate, Don't Legislate - Rev. J.T. Smith
Americans need to start implementing some common sense rather than trying to legislate everyone else's lives based on their own beliefs.
If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same gender.
Regarding the debate over abortion ("pro-life" vs "pro-choice"): In a recent Salon article, writer Irin Carmon said, "Abortion foes would like nothing less than to focus the debate on later abortions… because they make more people uncomfortable." But what anti-choice zealots are refusing to recognize is that it's cruel to ban abortion at a time when most women get prenatal testing to find out about their own health and the health of their pregnancy. It's callous to disregard the complicated circumstances that cannot be diagnosed until later in pregnancy. And it's morally wrong to deny women the essential medical care that they may need.
For every woman who's gone to Planned Parenthood regarding a pregnancy (i.e. to determine if you are pregnant and/or what to do about it), you need to realize that what happened next was your choice. There is neither accusation nor admonishment in that statement. You made a choice based on the options given. If you feel that the wrong choice was made, that means you have regrets; it does not mean Planned Parenthood forced you into anything. Their job is to advise based on the information given to them by the patient. Blaming them for a decision you now regret is not the right answer. Taking away the ability of another person to make their own choices because you regret the one(s) you made isn't the right answer. We all need to come to terms with the choices we've made in life. The reality is that every choice and decision we ever made was done for the same basic reason: Because it seemed like a good idea at the time. And making bad choices is, unfortunately, the best way for us to learn. While, yes, it is better and less painful to learn from the mistakes of others, ultimately we cannot force others to "learn from our mistakes." At the end of the day, everyone needs to learn from their own mistakes regardless of what we may think/believe.
If you don't agree with abortion (for whatever your personal reasons are), then don't have an abortion.
If you want your children to learn about the Christian concept of God, take them to a Christian church.
If you don't like the personal choices that other people make for themselves, then don't make those choices for your own self.
Trying to create laws that restrict other people's personal decisions is the wrong way to go about doing things. We need to educate people rather than legislate them!!
by Rev. J.T. Smith
If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same gender.
Regarding the debate over abortion ("pro-life" vs "pro-choice"): In a recent Salon article, writer Irin Carmon said, "Abortion foes would like nothing less than to focus the debate on later abortions… because they make more people uncomfortable." But what anti-choice zealots are refusing to recognize is that it's cruel to ban abortion at a time when most women get prenatal testing to find out about their own health and the health of their pregnancy. It's callous to disregard the complicated circumstances that cannot be diagnosed until later in pregnancy. And it's morally wrong to deny women the essential medical care that they may need.
For every woman who's gone to Planned Parenthood regarding a pregnancy (i.e. to determine if you are pregnant and/or what to do about it), you need to realize that what happened next was your choice. There is neither accusation nor admonishment in that statement. You made a choice based on the options given. If you feel that the wrong choice was made, that means you have regrets; it does not mean Planned Parenthood forced you into anything. Their job is to advise based on the information given to them by the patient. Blaming them for a decision you now regret is not the right answer. Taking away the ability of another person to make their own choices because you regret the one(s) you made isn't the right answer. We all need to come to terms with the choices we've made in life. The reality is that every choice and decision we ever made was done for the same basic reason: Because it seemed like a good idea at the time. And making bad choices is, unfortunately, the best way for us to learn. While, yes, it is better and less painful to learn from the mistakes of others, ultimately we cannot force others to "learn from our mistakes." At the end of the day, everyone needs to learn from their own mistakes regardless of what we may think/believe.
If you don't agree with abortion (for whatever your personal reasons are), then don't have an abortion.
If you want your children to learn about the Christian concept of God, take them to a Christian church.
If you don't like the personal choices that other people make for themselves, then don't make those choices for your own self.
Trying to create laws that restrict other people's personal decisions is the wrong way to go about doing things. We need to educate people rather than legislate them!!
2017-01-24
2017-01-21
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)